Хитлерова криминална одговорност

[Scott Isle]

Jače...za šta? Ovo je tema o kriminalnoj odgovornosti Adolfa Hitlera. Ovde nema mesta za diskusije kao što su je li nešto moralno

Kriminalna odgovornost nije stvar politike nego upravo morala i etike, i samo toga, i nicega drugog.

 

[Guede]

Ne sviraj bando jedna! Kriminalna odgovornost nije stvar politike nego upravo morala i etike, i samo toga, i nicega drugog.

Malo naivno uvjerenje da oni sto su pisali zakone za temelje da postavise iskljucivo moral i etiku .

Tema se prvo zvala Odbrana Adolfa Hitlera, a u kojoj je trebalo da se raspravlja kako bi ona izgledala da je kojim slucajem isti bio pred sudom nakon rata. Moderator je promjenio naslov, iskreno nije mi jasno zasto, al eto, oni sto sprovode zakon i tumace pravila mogu to da rade bez da se objasnjavaju

 

[Pumpaj Dinstanović]

Kriminalna odgovornost nije stvar politike nego upravo morala i etike, i samo toga, i nicega drugog.

Ne prtis temu i ne znas o cemu pricas.

 

[Scott Isle]

Malo naivno uvjerenje da oni sto su pisali zakone za temelje da postavise iskljucivo moral i etiku .

Tema se prvo zvala Odbrana Adolfa Hitlera, a u kojoj je trebalo da se raspravlja kako bi ona izgledala da je kojim slucajem isti bio pred sudom nakon rata. Moderator je promjenio naslov, iskreno nije mi jasno zasto, al eto, oni sto provode zakon i tumace pravila mogu to da rade bez da se objasnjavaju

Netacno!

Osnovno je: kriminalna pravna odgovornost je iskljucivo i samo bazirana ne etici i moralu, osnovnoj etici i moralu. Nikakvo objasnjenje nije potrebno, niti izgovoreno niti pisano. (A u politici ne postoji kriminalna odgovornost, jer je u politici sve dozvoljeno, ne postoji nesto sto nije dozvoljeno u politici, politika je stvar izbora.)

Kazna: Ako za kriminal sljedi kazna, osnovna etika nalaze da se ne cini steta, jer kazna je djelo koje moze proizvesti stetu kao i svako djelo, mozes pogrijesiti. Zbog te osnovne etike potrebno je biti siguran da je pocinjen kriminal, da ne bi napravili stetu i nekog pogresno kaznili.

Propisi: Da bi bili sigurni da ne cinimo stetu, propisuju se izgovoreno ili pisano elementi kriminala, ono sto cini kirminalno djelo,da bi mogli sagledati tacku po tacku da li je pocinjeno kriminalno djelo.

Odbrana: Osnovna etika nalaze da se ne laze i ne vara. Ako je kirminalno djelo propisano, optuzeni moze biti siguran da si ti i samo ti elementi kriminlnog djlea i nista drugo.

Citav pravni kirminalni sistem je stvar samo i iskljucivo etike i morala. A ako nije, onda to nije pravni sistem, nego terorizam.

 

[Cosmopolite]

Možemo i ovako..da li je Hitler bio bolestan?

 

[Zoran Grbić]

Najbolju odbranu je dao A. Dž. P. Tajlor. Pošto je bio antifašista, ta odbrana se posebno računa. Mislim da mu se knjiga može naći kao free pdf. Ali bi ta odbrana važila samo za prvu od četiri optužbe Nirnberškog tribunala. Bio bi proglašen krivim po ostale tri tačke.

 

[Konstantin Veliki]

Prvo srecan sam da tema koja ima neku svetsku tezinu, a ne samo balkansku ima toliko postova. To je za mene ohrabrujuci znak.

Iako moram da priznam da sam malo sasicen 2. svetog ratu, odkad sam kao klinac gledao svaku mogucu dokumentaciju te tematike. Tako da mi nije omiljena tema.

Možemo i ovako..da li je Hitler bio bolestan?

Ovo je bilo taktika svih nacista posle sloma 3. rajha. Hitler je bio bolestan i ludak i sve je sam radio. Hitler prema svemu sto znamo, ne bi ispunije kriterije neke psihicke bolesti i to je malo diskriminacija psihickih bolesnih ljudi.

Hitler jeste bio u toj meri paranojican sto je krivio Jevreje maltene za sva zla ovog sveta. I to svakako nije realno. Pa koliko bili pojedinaci Jevreji bogati i uticajni, oni ne mogu vladati svetom. Ali to je neka paranoja koja je bila rasirena sirom sveta. Nije Hitler izmislio antisemitizam niti Nacisti, nego je to bilo opste verovanje evropskog i azijatskog sveta. Mozda kod nas malo manje izrazena jer su Srbima tradicionalno bili dezurni krivci Cincari. A kako je taj antisemitizam privlacna ideja vidimo i na pisanjeh raznih foruma, koje svakako necu imenom da nazovem.

Antizemitizam nije jedina stvar koja je bila rasirena medju mnogjim Nemcima, a bogami i kod drugih naroda.

- Istorske nauke u to vreme je prepuna ideja bila, za koje za gotovo sigurnoscu mozemo reci da su pogresne. Mislilo se u celom svetu da postoje bolje i losije rase. Da rasa odredjuje dobrim delom dal je covek vredan i posten ili je lopov i ubica. Bilo je rasirena zabluda o cistoti naroda/nacija i da je mesanje naroda nesto sta se vrlo retko desavala kroz istoriju, sta je notorna glupost. U mnogim zemljama istoricari su licili vise na razne nase Deretice nego na istoricare.

- Eugenika je od Carlsa Darvina bila ideja velikog dela intelektuelne elite sveta. Nacisti su samo to dovrsili za njihovom ideologijom do kraja i stvarno unistili ljude za kronicnih bolesti.

- Ideja da cu Nemci ako se ne siru na istok umreti od gladi, to je bio i stup vec 1. svetskog rata. Bez teritorija u istocnoj evropi Nemcima preti smrt i glad. Niko nije predvideo smanjenje novorodjenih i razvoj poljoprivredne nauka. Danas Nemacka za trecinu manja moze sama da se nahrani najvaznijim stvarima. Imaju deficit u poljoprivrednoj trgovini uglavnom za tropske proizvode tipa kafe, voce i povrce koje bolje nikne na Jugu.

Nacisti su dosta stvari koje su radili dovrsili i u najgorem mogucem nacinu uradili.

To nije bilo delo jednog ludaka, nego mnoge ideje nacista imaju jako duboke korene u evropskoj i nemackoj istoriji.

 

[Pumpaj Dinstanović]

Prvo srecan sam da tema koja ima neku svetsku tezinu, a ne samo balkansku ima toliko postova. To je za mene ohrabrujuci znak.

Iako moram da priznam da sam malo sasicen 2. svetog ratu, odkad sam kao klinac gledao svaku mogucu dokumentaciju te tematike. Tako da mi nije omiljena tema.



Ovo je bilo taktika svih nacista posle sloma 3. rajha. Hitler je bio bolestan i ludak i sve je sam radio. Hitler prema svemu sto znamo, ne bi ispunije kriterije neke psihicke bolesti i to je malo diskriminacija psihickih bolesnih ljudi.

Hitler jeste bio u toj meri paranojican sto je krivio Jevreje maltene za sva zla ovog sveta. I to svakako nije realno. Pa koliko bili pojedinaci Jevreji bogati i uticajni, oni ne mogu vladati svetom. Ali to je neka paranoja koja je bila rasirena sirom sveta. Nije Hitler izmislio antisemitizam niti Nacisti, nego je to bilo opste verovanje evropskog i azijatskog sveta. Mozda kod nas malo manje izrazena jer su Srbima tradicionalno bili dezurni krivci Cincari. A kako je taj antisemitizam privlacna ideja vidimo i na pisanjeh raznih foruma, koje svakako necu imenom da nazovem.

Antizemitizam nije jedina stvar koja je bila rasirena medju mnogjim Nemcima, a bogami i kod drugih naroda.

- Istorske nauke u to vreme je prepuna ideja bila, za koje za gotovo sigurnoscu mozemo reci da su pogresne. Mislilo se u celom svetu da postoje bolje i losije rase. Da rasa odredjuje dobrim delom dal je covek vredan i posten ili je lopov i ubica. Bilo je rasirena zabluda o cistoti naroda/nacija i da je mesanje naroda nesto sta se vrlo retko desavala kroz istoriju, sta je notorna glupost. U mnogim zemljama istoricari su licili vise na razne nase Deretice nego na istoricare.

- Eugenika je od Carlsa Darvina bila ideja velikog dela intelektuelne elite sveta. Nacisti su samo to dovrsili za njihovom ideologijom do kraja i stvarno unistili ljude za kronicnih bolesti.

- Ideja da cu Nemci ako se ne siru na istok umreti od gladi, to je bio i stup vec 1. svetskog rata. Bez teritorija u istocnoj evropi Nemcima preti smrt i glad. Niko nije predvideo smanjenje novorodjenih i razvoj poljoprivredne nauka. Danas Nemacka za trecinu manja moze sama da se nahrani najvaznijim stvarima. Imaju deficit u poljoprivrednoj trgovini uglavnom za tropske proizvode tipa kafe, voce i povrce koje bolje nikne na Jugu.

Nacisti su dosta stvari koje su radili dovrsili i u najgorem mogucem nacinu uradili.

To nije bilo delo jednog ludaka, nego mnoge ideje nacista imaju jako duboke korene u evropskoj i nemackoj istoriji.

Da li si siguran? Postoje dosta dobri argumenti i dosta ljudi koji se zalažu za interpretaciju da Hitler svakako jeste bio psihijatrijski slučaj.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathography_of_Adolf_Hitler

 

[Konstantin Veliki]

Da li si siguran? Postoje dosta dobri argumenti i dosta ljudi koji se zalažu za interpretaciju da Hitler svakako jeste bio psihijatrijski slučaj.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathography_of_Adolf_Hitler

Dobro mozda sam preterao za tvrdnjom da psihicki nije bio bolestan. Sta sam hteo reci je da Hitler nije bio sam kriv za 2. svetskog rata.

 

[Pumpaj Dinstanović]

Dobro mozda sam preterao za tvrdnjom da psihicki nije bio bolestan. Sta sam hteo reci je da Hitler nije bio sam kriv za 2. svetskog rata.

Nekako mi se tvrdnje da je vrlo moguće bio paranoidni šizofreničar čine među najargumentovanijima.

Naravno, na nekakvom suđenju Hitlerovo propadajuće mentalno zdravlje odbrana bi svakako koristila. Problem je u tome, doduše, što se on sa time nikada ne bi saglasio, već bi insistirao na održavanju (iluzornog) imidža jake i čvrste, zdrave osobe.

 

[Khal Drogo]

Реално и сам Нирнбершки процес (овдје)

Spojler: Nuremberg trials

Nuremberg trials

Nuremberg trials
Case history
Court membership
Judges' panel
Court	International Military Tribunal
Decided	September 30 – October 1, 1946
Subsequent action(s)	See below; twelve German defendants sentenced to death
Judges sitting	Geoffrey Lawrence (President) Iona Nikitchenko Alexander Volchkov Norman Birkett Francis Biddle John J. Parker Edward Francis Carter Henri Donnedieu de Vabres Robert Falco

The Nuremberg trials (German: Nürnberger Prozesse) were a series of military tribunals held after World War II by the Allied forces under international law and the laws of war. The trials were most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, judicial, and economic leadership of Nazi Germany, who planned, carried out, or otherwise participated in the Holocaust and other war crimes. The trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany, and their decisions marked a turning point between classical and contemporary international law.
The first and best known of the trials was that of the major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT). It was described as "the greatest trial in history" by Sir Norman Birkett, one of the British judges present throughout.[1] Held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946,[2] the Tribunal was given the task of trying 24 of the most important political and military leaders of the Third Reich. Primarily treated here is the first trial, conducted by the International Military Tribunal. Further trials of lesser war criminals were conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT), which included the Doctors' trial and the Judges' Trial.
The categorization of the crimes and the constitution of the court represented a juridical advance that would be followed afterward by the United Nations for the development of an international jurisprudence in matters of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and wars of aggression, and led to the creation of the International Criminal Court. For the first time in international law, the Nuremberg indictments also mention genocide (count three, war crimes: "the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others.")[3]

Origin

United States Army clerks with evidence collected for the Nuremberg trials


Meeting of the War Crimes Executive Committee, which decided on the arrangements for the trial

A precedent for trying those accused of war crimes had been set at the end of World War I in the Leipzig War Crimes Trials held in May to July 1921 before the Reichsgericht (German Supreme Court) in Leipzig, although these had been on a very limited scale and largely regarded as ineffectual. At the beginning of 1940, the Polish government-in-exile asked the British and French governments to condemn the German invasion of their country. The British initially declined to do so; however, in April 1940, a joint declaration was issued by the British, French provisional government[4], and Polish. Relatively bland because of Anglo-French reservations, it proclaimed the trio's "desire to make a formal and public protest to the conscience of the world against the action of the German government whom they must hold responsible for these crimes which cannot remain unpunished."[5]

Three-and-a-half years later, the stated intention to punish the Germans was much more trenchant. On 1 November 1943, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States published their "Declaration on German Atrocities in Occupied Europe", which gave a "full warning" that, when the Nazis were defeated, the Allies would "pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth ... so that justice may be done. ... The above declaration is without prejudice to the case of the major war criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical location and who will be punished by a joint decision of the Government of the Allies."[6] This intention by the Allies to dispense justice was reiterated at the Yalta Conference and at Potsdam in 1945.[7]

British War Cabinet documents, released on 2 January 2006, showed that as early as December 1944 the Cabinet had discussed their policy for the punishment of the leading Nazis if captured. The British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, had then advocated a policy of summary execution in some circumstances, with the use of an Act of Attainder to circumvent legal obstacles, being dissuaded from this only by talks with US and Soviet leaders later in the war.[8]



The main target of the prosecution was Hermann Göring (left), considered to be the most important surviving official in Nazi Germany.

In late 1943, during the Tripartite Dinner Meeting at the Tehran Conference, the Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, proposed executing 50,000–100,000 German staff officers. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt joked that perhaps 49,000 would do. Churchill, believing them to be serious, denounced the idea of "the cold-blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country" and that he would rather be "taken out in the courtyard and shot" himself than partake in any such action.[9] However, he also stated that war criminals must pay for their crimes and that, under the Moscow Document which he had written, they should be tried at the places where the crimes were committed. Churchill was vigorously opposed to executions "for political purposes."[10][11] According to the minutes of a meeting between Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, on 4 February 1945, at the Livadia Palace, President Roosevelt "said that he had been very much struck by the extent of German destruction in Crimea and therefore he was more bloodthirsty in regard to the Germans than he had been a year ago, and he hoped that Marshal Stalin would again propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German Army."[12]

Henry Morgenthau Jr., US Secretary of the Treasury, suggested a plan for the total denazification of Germany;[13] this was known as the Morgenthau Plan. The plan advocated the forced de-industrialisation of Germany and the summary execution of so-called "arch-criminals", i.e. the major war criminals.[14] Roosevelt initially supported this plan, and managed to convince Churchill to support it in a less drastic form. Later, details were leaked in the US generating widespread condemnation by the nation's newspapers and propaganda was published about the plan in Germany. Roosevelt, aware of strong public disapproval, abandoned the plan, but did not adopt an alternative position on the matter. The demise of the Morgenthau Plan created the need for an alternative method of dealing with the Nazi leadership. The plan for the "Trial of European War Criminals" was drafted by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and the War Department. Following Roosevelt's death in April 1945, the new president, Harry S. Truman, gave strong approval for a judicial process. After a series of negotiations between Britain, the US, the Soviet Union, and France, details of the trial were worked out. The trials were to commence on 20 November 1945, in the Bavarian city of Nuremberg.

Creation of the courts
On 20 April 1942, representatives from the nine countries occupied by Germany met in London to draft the "Inter-Allied Resolution on German War Crimes". At the meetings in Tehran (1943), Yalta (1945), and Potsdam (1945), the three major wartime powers, the United Kingdom, United States, and the Soviet Union, agreed on the format of punishment for those responsible for war crimes during World War II. France was also awarded a place on the tribunal. The legal basis for the trial was established by the London Charter, which was agreed upon by the four so-called Great Powers on 8 August 1945, [15] and which restricted the trial to "punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries".

Some 200 German war crimes defendants were tried at Nuremberg, and 1,600 others were tried under the traditional channels of military justice. The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court was that defined by the Instrument of Surrender of Germany. Political authority for Germany had been transferred to the Allied Control Council which, having sovereign power over Germany, could choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of war. Because the court was limited to violations of the laws of war, it did not have jurisdiction over crimes that took place before the outbreak of war on 1 September 1939. The Soviet Union was one of the main driving forces behind the creation of a Special Military Tribunal, which evolved into the Nuremberg Trials by the creation of the legal framework to allow the charges against Nazi Germany to be applied. Soviet Lawyer Aron Naumovich Trainin, formed the legal framework for developing the concepts of aggressive war, genocide, and human rights.

Location

Four flags hanging from the Palace of Justice, 1945

Leipzig and Luxembourg were briefly considered as the location for the trial.[16] The Soviet Union had wanted the trials to take place in Berlin, as the capital city of the 'fascist conspirators',[16] but Nuremberg was chosen as the site for two reasons, the first being decisive:[17]

1. The Palace of Justice was spacious and largely undamaged (one of the few buildings that had remained largely intact through extensive Allied bombing of Germany), and a large prison was also part of the complex.
2. Nuremberg was considered the ceremonial birthplace of the Nazi Party. It had hosted the Party's annual propaganda rallies[16] and the Reichstag session that passed the Nuremberg Laws.[17] Thus it was considered a fitting place to mark the Party's symbolic demise.

As a compromise with the Soviets, it was agreed that while the location of the trial would be Nuremberg, Berlin would be the official home of the Tribunal authorities.[18][19][20] It was also agreed that France would become the permanent seat of the IMT[21] and that the first trial (several were planned) would take place in Nuremberg.[18][20]

Most of the accused had previously been detained at Camp Ashcan, a processing station and interrogation center in Luxembourg, and were moved to Nuremberg for the trial.

Participants
Each of the four countries provided one judge and an alternative, as well as a prosecutor.


Judges sitting in Nuremberg, from left to right: Volchkov, Nikitchenko, Birkett, Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, Biddle, Parker, Donnedieu de Vabres and Falco
Judges

• Major General Iona Nikitchenko (Soviet main)
• Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Volchkov (Soviet alternate)
• Colonel Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, Lord Justice (British main), President of the Tribunal
• Sir Norman Birkett (British alternate)
• Francis Biddle (American main)
• John J. Parker (American alternate)
• Edward Francis Carter (American alternate)
• Professor Henri Donnedieu de Vabres (French main)
• Robert Falco (French alternate)

Chief prosecutors

• Attorney General Sir Hartley Shawcross (United Kingdom)
• Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson (United States)
• Lieutenant-General Roman Andreyevich Rudenko (Soviet Union)
• François de Menthon, later replaced by Auguste Champetier de Ribes (France)

Assisting Jackson were the lawyers Telford Taylor,[22] William S. Kaplan[23] and Thomas J. Dodd, and Richard Sonnenfeldt, a US Army interpreter. Assisting Shawcross were Major Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and Sir John Wheeler-Bennett. Mervyn Griffith-Jones, who was later to become famous as the chief prosecutor in the Lady Chatterley's Lover obscenity trial, was also on Shawcross's team. Shawcross also recruited a young barrister, Anthony Marreco, who was the son of a friend of his, to help the British team with the heavy workload.

Defence counsel
The vast majority of the defense attorneys were German lawyers.[24] These included Georg Fröschmann, Heinz Fritz (Hans Fritzsche), Otto Kranzbühler (Karl Dönitz), Otto Pannenbecker (Wilhelm Frick), Alfred Thoma (Alfred Rosenberg), Kurt Kauffmann (Ernst Kaltenbrunner), Hans Laternser (general staff and high command), Franz Exner (Alfred Jodl), Alfred Seidl (Hans Frank), Otto Stahmer (Hermann Göring), Walter Ballas (Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach), Hans Flächsner (Albert Speer), Günther von Rohrscheidt (Rudolf Hess), Egon Kubuschok (Franz von Papen), Robert Servatius (Fritz Sauckel), Fritz Sauter (Joachim von Ribbentrop), Walther Funk (Baldur von Schirach), Hanns Marx (Julius Streicher), Otto Nelte (Wilhelm Keitel), and Herbert Kraus/Rudolph Dix (both working for Hjalmar Schacht). The main counsel were supported by a total of 70 assistants, clerks and lawyers.[25] The defense witnesses included several men who took part in war crimes themselves during World War II, such as Rudolf Höss. The men testifying for the defense hoped to receive more lenient sentences.[clarification needed] All of the men testifying on behalf of the defense were found guilty on several counts.[26][dubious – discuss]



The defendants in the dock, guarded by American Military Police
The trial
The International Military Tribunal was opened on 19 November 1945 in the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg.[27][28] The first session was presided over by the Soviet judge, Nikitchenko. The prosecution entered indictments against 24 major war criminals and seven organizations – the leadership of the Nazi party, the Reich Cabinet, the Schutzstaffel (SS), Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the Gestapo, the Sturmabteilung (SA) and the "General Staff and High Command", comprising several categories of senior military officers.[avalon 1] These organizations were to be declared "criminal" if found guilty.

The indictments were for:

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. Participating in war crimes
4. Crimes against humanity

The 24 accused were, with respect to each charge, either indicted but not convicted (I), indicted and found guilty (G), or not charged (—), as listed below by defendant, charge, and eventual outcome:



��

1	2	3	4
Photos	Name	Count	Penalty	Notes
	Martin Bormann	I	—	G	G	Death (in absentia)	Successor to Hess as Nazi Party Secretary. Sentenced to death in absentia.[avalon 2] Remains found in Berlin in 1972 and eventually dated to 2 May 1945 (per Artur Axmann's account); thought to have been killed trying to flee Berlin in the last few days of the war.
	Karl Dönitz	I	G	G	—	10 years	Leader of the Kriegsmarine from 1943, succeeded Raeder. Initiator of the U-boat campaign. Briefly became President of Germany following Hitler's death.[avalon 3] Convicted of carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare in breach of the 1936 Second London Naval Treaty, but was not punished for that charge because the United States committed the same breach.[29] Released 1 October 1956. Died 24 December 1980. Defense attorney: Otto Kranzbühler
	Hans Frank	I	—	G	G	Death	Reich Law Leader 1933–45 and Governor-General of the General Government in occupied Poland 1939–45. Expressed repentance.[avalon 4] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Wilhelm Frick	I	G	G	G	Death	Hitler's Minister of the Interior 1933–43 and Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia 1943–45. Co-authored the Nuremberg Race Laws.[avalon 5] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Hans Fritzsche	I	-	I	I	Acquitted	Popular radio commentator; head of the news division of the Nazi Propaganda Ministry.[avalon 6] Released early in 1950.[30] Fritzsche had made himself a career within German radio, because his voice was similar to Goebbels'.[31] Died 27 September 1953.
	Walther Funk	I	G	G	G	Life imprisonment	Hitler's Minister of Economics; succeeded Schacht as head of the Reichsbank. Released because of ill health on 16 May 1957.[avalon 7] Died 31 May 1960.
	Hermann Göring	G	G	G	G	Death	Reichsmarschall, Commander of the Luftwaffe 1935–45, Chief of the 4-Year Plan 1936–45, and original head of the Gestapo before turning it over to the SS in April 1934. Originally the second-highest-ranked member of the Nazi Party and Hitler's designated successor, he fell out of favor with Hitler in April 1945. Highest ranking Nazi official to be tried at Nuremberg.[32] Committed suicide the night before his scheduled execution.[avalon 8]
	Rudolf Hess	G	G	I	I	Life imprisonment	Hitler's Deputy Führer until he flew to Scotland in 1941 in an attempt to broker peace with the United Kingdom. Had been imprisoned since then. After trial, incarcerated at Spandau Prison, where he committed suicide in 1987.[avalon 9]
	Alfred Jodl	G	G	G	G	Death	Wehrmacht Generaloberst, Keitel's subordinate and Chief of the OKW's Operations Division 1938–45. Signed orders for the summary execution of Allied commandos and Soviet commissars [avalon 10] Signed the instruments of surrender on 7 May 1945 in Reims as the representative of Karl Dönitz. Hanged 16 October 1946. Posthumously rehabilitated in 1953, which was later reversed.
	Ernst Kaltenbrunner	I	—	G	G	Death	Highest-ranking SS leader to be tried at Nuremberg. Chief of RSHA 1943–45, the Nazi organ comprising the intelligence service (SD), Secret State Police (Gestapo) and Criminal Police (Kripo) and having overall command over the Einsatzgruppen.[avalon 11] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Wilhelm Keitel	G	G	G	G	Death	Head of Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) and de facto defence minister 1938–45. Known for his unquestioning loyalty to Hitler.[33] Signed numerous orders calling for soldiers and political prisoners to be executed. Expressed repentance.[avalon 12] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach	I	-	I	I	No decision	Major industrialist. C.E.O. of Friedrich Krupp AG 1912–45. Medically unfit for trial; he had been partially paralyzed since 1941. Due to an error, Gustav, instead of his son Alfried (who ran Krupp for his father during most of the war), was selected for indictment.[34] The prosecutors attempted to substitute his son in the indictment, but the judges rejected this due to proximity to trial. However, the charges against him remained on record in the event he should recover (he died in February 1950).[35] Alfried was tried in a separate Nuremberg trial (the Krupp Trial) for the use of slave labor, thereby escaping worse charges and possible execution.
	Robert Ley	I	-	I	I	No decision	Head of DAF, German Labour Front. Committed suicide on 25 October 1945, before the trial began. Indicted but neither acquitted nor found guilty as trial did not proceed.
	Baron Konstantin von Neurath	G	G	G	G	15 years	Minister of Foreign Affairs 1932–38, succeeded by Ribbentrop. Later, Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia 1939–43. On furlough since 1941, he resigned in 1943 because of a dispute with Hitler. Released (ill health) 6 November 1954[avalon 13] after suffering a heart attack. Died 14 August 1956.
	Franz von Papen	I	I	—	—	Acquitted	Chancellor of Germany in 1932 and Vice-Chancellor under Hitler in 1933–34. Ambassador to Austria 1934–38 and ambassador to Turkey 1939–44. Although acquitted at Nuremberg, von Papen was reclassified as a war criminal in 1947 by a German de-Nazification court, and sentenced to eight years' hard labor. He was acquitted following appeal after serving two.[avalon 14]
	Erich Raeder	G	G	G	—	Life imprisonment	Commander In Chief of the Kriegsmarine from 1928 until his retirement in 1943, succeeded by Dönitz. Released (ill health) 26 September 1955.[avalon 15] Died 6 November 1960.
	Joachim von Ribbentrop	G	G	G	G	Death	Ambassador-Plenipotentiary 1935–36. Ambassador to the United Kingdom 1936–38. Minister of Foreign Affairs 1938–45.[avalon 16] Expressed repentance.[36] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Alfred Rosenberg	G	G	G	G	Death	Racial theory ideologist. Later, Minister of the Eastern Occupied Territories 1941–45.[avalon 17] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Fritz Sauckel	I	I	G	G	Death	Gauleiter of Thuringia 1927–45. Plenipotentiary of the Nazi slave labor program 1942–45.[avalon 18] Hanged 16 October 1946. Defense attorney: Robert Servatius
	Dr. Hjalmar Schacht	I	I	—	—	Acquitted	Prominent banker and economist. Pre-war president of the Reichsbank 1923–30 & 1933–38 and Economics Minister 1934–37. Admitted to violating the Treaty of Versailles.[avalon 19] Many at Nuremberg alleged that the British had brought about Schacht's acquittal to safeguard German industrialists and financiers; Francis Biddle revealed Geoffrey Lawrence had argued that Schacht, being a "man of character", was nothing like the other "ruffians" on trial.[37] By 1944, he had been imprisoned in a concentration camp by the Nazis, and he was outraged to be put on trial as a major war criminal.[38]
	Baldur von Schirach	I	—	—	G	20 years	Head of the Hitlerjugend from 1933–40, Gauleiter of Vienna 1940–45. Expressed repentance.[avalon 20] Released 30 September 1966. Died 8 August 1974.
	Arthur Seyss-Inquart	I	G	G	G	Death	Instrumental in the Anschluss and briefly Austrian Chancellor 1938. Deputy to Frank in Poland 1939–40. Later, Reichskommissar of the occupied Netherlands 1940–45. Expressed repentance.[avalon 21] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Albert Speer	I	I	G	G	20 years	Hitler's friend, favorite architect, and Minister of Armaments from 1942 until the end of the war. In this capacity, he was ultimately responsible for the use of slave laborers from the occupied territories in armaments production. Expressed repentance.[avalon 22] Released 1 October 1966. Died 1 September 1981.
	Julius Streicher	I	—	—	G	Death	Gauleiter of Franconia 1922–40, when he was relieved of authority but allowed by Hitler to keep his official title. Publisher of the anti-Semitic weekly newspaper Der Stürmer.[avalon 23] Hanged 16 October 1946.

Overview of the trial

Hermann Göring under cross-examination

"Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps" film produced by US armed forces and used as evidence.

October 17, 1946 U.S. newsreel of Nuremberg trials sentencing.

• 20 November 1945: The trials begin.
• 21 November 1945: Robert H. Jackson opens for the prosecution with a speech lasting several hours, leaving an impression on both the court and the public.
• 26 November 1945: The Hossbach Memorandum (of a conference in which Hitler explained his war plans) is presented.
• 29 November 1945: The film Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps is screened.[39]
• 30 November 1945: Witness Erwin von Lahousen testifies that Keitel and von Ribbentrop gave orders for the murder of Poles, Jews, and Russian prisoners of war.
• 11 December 1945: The film The Nazi Plan is screened, showing long-term planning and preparations for war by the Nazis.
• 3 January 1946: Witness Otto Ohlendorf, former head of Einsatzgruppe D, admits to the murder of around 90,000 Jews.
• 3 January 1946: Witness Dieter Wisliceny describes the organization of RSHA Department IV-B-4, in charge of the Final Solution.
• 7 January 1946: Witness and former SS-Obergruppenführer Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski admits to the organized mass murder of Jews and other groups in the Soviet Union.
• 28 January 1946: Witness Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier, member of the French Resistance and concentration camp survivor, testifies on the Holocaust, becoming the first Holocaust survivor to do so.
• 11–12 February 1946: Witness and former Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus, who had been secretly brought to Nuremberg from Soviet captivity, testifies on the question of waging a war of aggression.
• 14 February 1946: The Soviet prosecutors try to blame the Katyn massacre on the Germans.
• 19 February 1946: The Soviet film Cruelties of the German-Fascist Intruders, detailing the atrocities in the extermination camps, is screened.
• 27 February 1946: Witness Abraham Sutzkever testifies on the murder of almost 80,000 Jews in Vilnius by the Germans occupying the city.
• 8 March 1946: The first witness for the defense testifies – former General Karl Bodenschatz.
• 13–22 March 1946: Hermann Göring takes the stand.
• 15 April 1946: Witness Rudolf Höss, former commandant of Auschwitz, confirms that Kaltenbrunner had never been there, but admits to having carried out mass murder.
• 21 May 1946: Witness Ernst von Weizsäcker explains the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939, including its secret protocol detailing the division of Eastern Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union.
• 20 June 1946: Albert Speer takes the stand. He is the only defendant to take personal responsibility for his actions.
• 29 June 1946: The defense for Martin Bormann testifies.
• 1–2 July 1946: The court hears six witnesses testifying on the Katyn massacre; the Soviets fail to pin the blame for the event on Germany.
• 2 July 1946: Admiral Chester W. Nimitz provides written testimony regarding attacks on merchant vessels without warning, admitting that Germany was not alone in these attacks, as the US did the same.
• 4 July 1946: Final statements for the defense.
• 26 July 1946: Final statements for the prosecution.
• 30 July 1946: Start of the trial of the "criminal organizations".
• 31 August 1946: Last statements by the defendants.
• 1 September 1946: The court adjourns.
• 30 September–1 October 1946: The sentencing occurs, taking two days, with the individual sentences read out on the afternoon of 1 October.[40]

The accusers were successful in unveiling the background of developments leading to the outbreak of World War II, which cost around 50 million lives in Europe alone,[41] as well as the extent of the atrocities committed in the name of the Hitler regime. Twelve of the accused were sentenced to death, seven received prison sentences (ranging from 10 years to life sentence), three were acquitted, and two were not charged.[42]

Executions
Main article: Nuremberg executions


The body of Hermann Göring, Oct. 16, 1946

The death sentences were carried out on 16 October 1946 by hanging using the standard drop method instead of long drop. The U.S. Army denied claims that the drop length was too short, which may cause the condemned to die slowly from strangulation instead of quickly from a broken neck,[43] but evidence remains that some of the condemned men choked in agony for 14 to 28 minutes.[44][45] The executioner was John C. Woods.[46] The executions took place in the gymnasium of the court building (demolished in 1983).[47]

Although the rumor has long persisted that the bodies were taken to Dachau and burned there, they were incinerated in a crematorium in Munich, and the ashes scattered over the river Isar.[48] The French judges suggested that the military condemned (Göring, Keitel, and Jodl) be shot by a firing squad, as is standard for military courts-martial, but this was opposed by Biddle and the Soviet judges, who argued that the military officers had violated their military ethos and were not worthy of the more dignified death by shooting.[citation needed] The prisoners sentenced to incarceration were transferred to Spandau Prison in 1947.

Of the 12 defendants sentenced to death by hanging, two were not hanged: Martin Bormann was convicted in absentia (he had, unknown to the Allies, died while trying to escape from Berlin in May 1945), and Hermann Göring committed suicide the night before the execution. The remaining 10 defendants sentenced to death were hanged.

Nuremberg principles
The definition of what constitutes a war crime is described by the Nuremberg principles, a set of guidelines document which was created as a result of the trial. The medical experiments conducted by German doctors and prosecuted in the so-called Doctors' Trial led to the creation of the Nuremberg Code to control the future trials involving human subjects, a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation.

Of the indicted organizations the following were found not to be criminal:

• Reichsregierung [de]
• "The General Staff and High Command" was found not to comprise a group or organization as defined by Article 9 of the London Charter 14 Members of the High Command were tried as Criminals at the high command trial case 12 of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings
• Sturmabteilung

Subsidiary and related trials
The American authorities conducted subsequent Nuremberg Trials in their occupied zone.

Other trials conducted after the first Nuremberg trial include the following:

• Auschwitz trial
• Belsen trial
• Belzec trial before the 1st Munich District Court in the mid-1960s, of eight SS men of the Belzec extermination camp
• Chełmno trials of the Chełmno extermination camp personnel, held in Poland and Germany. The cases were decided almost twenty years apart
• Dachau trials
• Frankfurt Auschwitz trials
• Majdanek trials, the longest Nazi war crimes trial in history, spanning over 30 years
• Mauthausen-Gusen camp trials
• Hamburg Ravensbrück trials
• Sobibór trial held in Hagen, Germany, in 1965 against the SS men of the Sobibor extermination camp
• Treblinka trials in Düsseldorf, Germany

American role in the trial

Chief American prosecutor Robert H. Jackson addresses the Nuremberg court. 20 November 1945.

While Sir Geoffrey Lawrence of Britain was the judge who was chosen to serve as the president of the court, arguably, the most prominent of the judges at the trial was his American counterpart, Francis Biddle.[49] Before the trial, Biddle had been Attorney General of the United States but had been asked to resign by Truman earlier in 1945.[50]

Some accounts argue that Truman had appointed Biddle as the main American judge for the trial as an apology for asking for his resignation.[50] Ironically, Biddle was known during his time as Attorney General for opposing the idea of prosecuting Nazi leaders for crimes committed before the beginning of the war, even sending out a memorandum on 5 January 1945 on the subject.[51] The note also expressed Biddle's opinion that instead of proceeding with the original plan for prosecuting entire organizations, there should simply be more trials that would prosecute specific offenders.[51]

Biddle soon changed his mind, as he approved a modified version of the plan on 21 January 1945, likely due to time constraints, since the trial would be one of the main issues which were to be discussed at Yalta.[52] At trial, the Nuremberg tribunal ruled that any member of an organization convicted of war crimes, such as the SS or Gestapo, who had joined after 1939 would be considered a war criminal.[53] Biddle managed to convince the other judges to make an exemption for any member who was drafted or had no knowledge of the crimes being committed by these organizations.[50]

Justice Robert H. Jackson played an important role in not only the trial itself but also in the creation of the International Military Tribunal, as he led the American delegation to London that, in the summer of 1945, argued in favor of prosecuting the Nazi leadership as a criminal conspiracy.[54] According to Airey Neave, Jackson was also the one behind the prosecution's decision to include membership in any of the six criminal organizations in the indictments at the trial, though the IMT rejected this because it was wholly without precedent in either international law or the domestic laws of any of the Allies.[55] Jackson also attempted to have Alfried Krupp be tried in place of his father, Gustav and even suggested that Alfried volunteer be tried in his father's place.[56] Both proposals were rejected by the IMT, particularly by Lawrence and Biddle, and some sources indicate that this resulted in Jackson being viewed unfavorably by the latter.[56]

Thomas Dodd was a prosecutor for the United States. There was an immense amount of evidence backing the prosecutors' case, especially since meticulous records of the Nazis' actions had been kept. There were records taken in by the prosecutors that had signatures from specific Nazis signing for everything from stationery supplies to Zyklon B gas, which was used to kill the inmates of the death camps. Thomas Dodd showed a series of pictures to the courtroom after reading through the documents of crimes committed by the defendants. The showing consisted of pictures displaying the atrocities performed by the defendants. The pictures had been gathered when the inmates were liberated from the concentration camps.[57]

Henry F. Gerecke, a Lutheran pastor, and Sixtus O'Connor, a Roman Catholic priest, were sent to minister to the Nazi defendants.[58] Photographs of the trial were taken by a team of about a dozen US Army still photographers, under the direction of chief photographer Ray D'Addario.[59]

Legacy

Courtroom 600 in June 2016 showing contemporary configuration

The Tribunal is celebrated for establishing that "crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced."[60] The creation of the IMT was followed by trials of lesser Nazi officials and the trials of Nazi doctors, who performed experiments on people in prison camps. It served as the model for the International Military Tribunal for the Far East which tried Japanese officials for crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. It also served as the model[citation needed] for the Eichmann trial and present-day courts at The Hague, for trying crimes committed during the Balkan wars of the early 1990s, and at Arusha, for trying the people responsible for the genocide in Rwanda.

The Nuremberg trials had a great influence on the development of international criminal law. The Conclusions of the Nuremberg trials served as models for:

• The Genocide Convention, 1948.
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
• The Nuremberg Principles, 1950.
• The Convention on the Abolition of the Statute of Limitations on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1968.
• The Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War, 1949; its supplementary protocols, 1977.

The International Law Commission, acting on the request of the United Nations General Assembly, produced in 1950 the report Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgement of the Tribunal (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. II[61]). See Nuremberg Principles.

The influence of the tribunal can also be seen in the proposals for a permanent international criminal court, and the drafting of international criminal codes, later prepared by the International Law Commission.

Tourists can visit courtroom 600 on days when no trial is on. A permanent exhibition has been dedicated to the trials.[62]

Establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court
The Nuremberg trials initiated a movement for the prompt establishment of a permanent international criminal court, eventually leading over fifty years later to the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. This movement was brought about because, during the trials, there were conflicting court methods between the German court system and the U.S. court system. The crime of conspiracy was unheard of in the civil law systems of the Continent. Therefore, the German defense found it unfair to charge the defendants with conspiracy to commit crimes, while the judges from common-law countries were used to doing so.[63][page needed]

It [IMT] was the first successful international criminal court, and has since played a pivotal role in the development of international criminal law and international institutions.[64]

Criticism

This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. (September 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Though the guilt of the sentenced parties is generally considered beyond doubt, the trials themselves have been criticised on several procedural points.

A contemporary German jurist said:

That the defendants at Nuremberg were held responsible, condemned and punished, will seem to most of us initially as a kind of historical justice. However, no one who takes the question of guilt seriously will be content with this sensibility. Justice is not served when the guilty parties are punished in any old way, even if this seems appropriate concerning their measure of guilt. Justice is only served when the guilty are punished in a way that carefully and conscientiously considers their criminal errors according to the provisions of valid law under the jurisdiction of a legally appointed judge.[65]

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a "fraud".[66] "[Chief U.S. prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg[.] I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas", Stone wrote.[66]

Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."[67] Another prominent American who raised the ex post facto criticism was Robert A. Taft, a US Senate Majority Leader from Ohio and son of William Howard Taft. This position contributed to his failure to secure the Republican nomination for President in 1948.[68]

Ex post facto charges
Critics of the Nuremberg trials argued that the charges against the defendants were only defined as "crimes" after they were committed and saw the trial as a form of "victor's justice".[69][70] Quincy Wright, writing eighteen months after the conclusion of the IMT, explained the opposition to the Tribunal thus:

The assumptions underlying the Charter of the United Nations, the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal are far removed from the positivistic assumptions which greatly influenced the thought of international jurists in the nineteenth century. Consequently, the activities of those institutions have frequently been vigorously criticized by positivistic jurists ... [who] have asked: How can principles enunciated by the Nuremberg Tribunal, to take it as an example, be of legal value until most of the states have agreed to a tribunal with jurisdiction to enforce those principles? How could the Nuremberg Tribunal have obtained jurisdiction to find Germany guilty of aggression, when Germany had not consented to the Tribunal? How could the law, first explicitly accepted in the Nuremberg Charter of 1945, have bound the defendants in the trial when they committed the acts for which they were indicted years earlier?[71]

In 1915, Britain, France, and Russia jointly issued a statement explicitly charging, for the first time, another government (the Sublime Porte) of committing "a crime against humanity". However, it was not until the phrase was further developed in the London Charter that it had a specific meaning. As the London Charter definition of what constituted a crime against humanity was unknown when many of the crimes were committed, it could be argued to be a retroactive law, in violation of the principles of the prohibition of ex post facto laws and the general principle of penal law nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.[avalon 24]

The Tribunal itself strongly disputed that the London Charter was ex post facto law, pointing to existing international agreements signed by Germany that made aggressive war and certain wartime actions unlawful, such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.[avalon 25]


Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (at lectern, left) and an unknown prosecutor

One criticism that was made of the IMT was that some treaties were not binding on the Axis powers because they were not signatories. This was addressed in the judgment relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity,[avalon 26] which contains an expansion of customary law: "the [Hague] Convention expressly stated that it was an attempt 'to revise the general laws and customs of war,' which is thus recognized to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognized by all civilized nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the [London] Charter."

Hypocrisy of Allied nations
Jackson, in a letter discussing the weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told U.S. President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves "have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for", including violation of the Geneva Convention and the Soviet Union's aggression against the Baltic states.[72][73] One of the charges, brought against Keitel, Jodl, and Ribbentrop, included conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland in 1939. However, Soviet leaders were not tried for their part in the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact.[74] Moreover, Allied Powers Britain and the Soviet Union were not tried for preparing and conducting the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran (1941) and the Winter War (1939–1940), respectively. The main Soviet judge, Iona Nikitchenko, presided over some of the most notorious of Joseph Stalin's show trials during the Great Purges of 1936 to 1938, where he, among other things, sentenced Kamenev and Zinoviev,[75] as part of a regime that executed 681,692 people arrested for "counter-revolutionary and state crimes" in 1937 and 1938 alone.[76] Though the ICTY later held it to be "flawed in principle",[77] the tu quoque argument, adduced by German defendants, was admitted as a valid defense during the trials, and the admirals Dönitz and Raeder were not punished for waging unrestricted submarine warfare.[77]

Legitimacy
The validity of the court has been questioned on several grounds.

The trials were conducted under their own rules of evidence. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible "evidence". Article 19 specified that "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence ... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value". Article 21 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) Charter stipulated:

The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations.

The chief Soviet prosecutor submitted false documentation in an attempt to indict defendants for the murder of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn forest near Smolensk. However, the other Allied prosecutors refused to support the indictment and German lawyers promised to mount an embarrassing defense. No one was charged or found guilty at Nuremberg for the Katyn Forest massacre.[78] In 1990, the Soviet government acknowledged that the Katyn massacre was carried out, not by the Germans, but by the Soviet secret police.[79]

Luise, the wife of Alfred Jodl, attached herself to her husband's defense team. Subsequently, interviewed by Gitta Sereny, researching her biography of Albert Speer, Luise alleged that in many instances the Allied prosecution made charges against Jodl based on documents that they refused to share with the defense. Jodl nevertheless proved some of the charges made against him were untrue, such as the charge that he helped Hitler gain control of Germany in 1933. He was in one instance aided by a GI clerk who chose to give Luise a document showing that the execution of a group of British commandos in Norway had been legitimate. The GI warned Luise that if she did not copy it immediately she would never see it again

Равнајући се према данашњим стандардима, бјеше више фарса него озбиљан судски процес гдје би оптужени могли рећи коју у своју одбрану. И то бјеше прилагођено том времену и околностима након рата какав није забиљежен у историји.
Гледајучи 4 тачке тадашње оптужнице;

The indictments were for:
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
Participating in war crimes
Crimes against humanity

- Учествовање у заједничком плану или завјери за спровођење злочина против мира.
- Планирање, започињање и вођење агресорских ратова и других злочина против мира.
- Ратни злочини.
- Злочини против човјечности.

Сам Хитлер да се нашао на оптуженичкј клупи би био проглашен кривим по све четири тачке оптужнице, посебно што су већ неки њему подређени били проглашени кривим по свим тачкама оптужнице.
Када би данас било суђење, како је примијетио форумаш Zoran Grbić можда би имао простора да обори прву тачку оптужнице али то зависи од које би премисе пошло судско вијеће, да ли "свако је невин док се не докаже супротно" или "сваки нациста је крив док се не докаже супротно". Додуше она правна наказа у Ден Хагу је увела нову премису у судској пракси "свако је невин док се докаже да је Србин". Досјетљиво.

Да ли је Хитлер био психијатријски случај?
То је задњих деценија пожељна перцепција, то да је био психијатријски случај. Наравно, ако би пажљиво скенирали његову биографију, знане епизоде или свједочења о понашању, селективним приступом нашли би подоста тога гдје би "болдовали" такво увјерење. Но опет ако би било коју личност у историји која је имала важну улогу у неком времену тако "скенирали" питање је код колико не би нашли примјере психијатријског поремећаја.
Но ту се отвара кључно питање. Ако је био психијатријски случај, илити народски речено луђак, како је успио окренути тако ток историје и да ствари оду тако по злу? Није његов политички пут трајао пар година него двије деценије. Па како је успио постати таквим ауторитетом код оних који су га слиједили? И како је успио задобити масе да га слиједе? Да се не лажемо, за велику већину тадашњег њемачког народа бјеше лидер којем су вјеровали, којег вриједи пратити, али не само њемачког народа, имао је подршку и припадника других народа, да сте направили анкету 1940-их у хрватском корпусу шта мислите колико би њих процентуално оцијенило Хитлера позитивним.

Раније су писане књиге гдје су аутори покушали разумјети генезу тог зла, (препоручујем књигу "Историја Гестапоа" од Жака Делароа из 1966.године, не знам да ли је доступна на нету, ако нађем линк приложићу) и гдје се тежило бољем разумијевању тог времена, но задњих деценија имамо једну банализацију, гдје се савршено уклапа да је Хитлер био луђак који је некако успио обрлатити њемачку нацију, а богами и добре % других нација.
Но како то и бива, банализација нас обично одведе на погрешан колосјек.

 

[Zoran Grbić]

Реално и сам Нирнбершки процес (овдје)

Spojler: Nuremberg trials

Nuremberg trials

Nuremberg trials
Case history
Court membership
Judges' panel
Court	International Military Tribunal
Decided	September 30 – October 1, 1946
Subsequent action(s)	See below; twelve German defendants sentenced to death
Judges sitting	Geoffrey Lawrence (President) Iona Nikitchenko Alexander Volchkov Norman Birkett Francis Biddle John J. Parker Edward Francis Carter Henri Donnedieu de Vabres Robert Falco

The Nuremberg trials (German: Nürnberger Prozesse) were a series of military tribunals held after World War II by the Allied forces under international law and the laws of war. The trials were most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, judicial, and economic leadership of Nazi Germany, who planned, carried out, or otherwise participated in the Holocaust and other war crimes. The trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany, and their decisions marked a turning point between classical and contemporary international law.
The first and best known of the trials was that of the major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT). It was described as "the greatest trial in history" by Sir Norman Birkett, one of the British judges present throughout.[1] Held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946,[2] the Tribunal was given the task of trying 24 of the most important political and military leaders of the Third Reich. Primarily treated here is the first trial, conducted by the International Military Tribunal. Further trials of lesser war criminals were conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT), which included the Doctors' trial and the Judges' Trial.
The categorization of the crimes and the constitution of the court represented a juridical advance that would be followed afterward by the United Nations for the development of an international jurisprudence in matters of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and wars of aggression, and led to the creation of the International Criminal Court. For the first time in international law, the Nuremberg indictments also mention genocide (count three, war crimes: "the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others.")[3]

Origin

United States Army clerks with evidence collected for the Nuremberg trials


Meeting of the War Crimes Executive Committee, which decided on the arrangements for the trial

A precedent for trying those accused of war crimes had been set at the end of World War I in the Leipzig War Crimes Trials held in May to July 1921 before the Reichsgericht (German Supreme Court) in Leipzig, although these had been on a very limited scale and largely regarded as ineffectual. At the beginning of 1940, the Polish government-in-exile asked the British and French governments to condemn the German invasion of their country. The British initially declined to do so; however, in April 1940, a joint declaration was issued by the British, French provisional government[4], and Polish. Relatively bland because of Anglo-French reservations, it proclaimed the trio's "desire to make a formal and public protest to the conscience of the world against the action of the German government whom they must hold responsible for these crimes which cannot remain unpunished."[5]

Three-and-a-half years later, the stated intention to punish the Germans was much more trenchant. On 1 November 1943, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States published their "Declaration on German Atrocities in Occupied Europe", which gave a "full warning" that, when the Nazis were defeated, the Allies would "pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth ... so that justice may be done. ... The above declaration is without prejudice to the case of the major war criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical location and who will be punished by a joint decision of the Government of the Allies."[6] This intention by the Allies to dispense justice was reiterated at the Yalta Conference and at Potsdam in 1945.[7]

British War Cabinet documents, released on 2 January 2006, showed that as early as December 1944 the Cabinet had discussed their policy for the punishment of the leading Nazis if captured. The British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, had then advocated a policy of summary execution in some circumstances, with the use of an Act of Attainder to circumvent legal obstacles, being dissuaded from this only by talks with US and Soviet leaders later in the war.[8]



The main target of the prosecution was Hermann Göring (left), considered to be the most important surviving official in Nazi Germany.

In late 1943, during the Tripartite Dinner Meeting at the Tehran Conference, the Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, proposed executing 50,000–100,000 German staff officers. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt joked that perhaps 49,000 would do. Churchill, believing them to be serious, denounced the idea of "the cold-blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country" and that he would rather be "taken out in the courtyard and shot" himself than partake in any such action.[9] However, he also stated that war criminals must pay for their crimes and that, under the Moscow Document which he had written, they should be tried at the places where the crimes were committed. Churchill was vigorously opposed to executions "for political purposes."[10][11] According to the minutes of a meeting between Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, on 4 February 1945, at the Livadia Palace, President Roosevelt "said that he had been very much struck by the extent of German destruction in Crimea and therefore he was more bloodthirsty in regard to the Germans than he had been a year ago, and he hoped that Marshal Stalin would again propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German Army."[12]

Henry Morgenthau Jr., US Secretary of the Treasury, suggested a plan for the total denazification of Germany;[13] this was known as the Morgenthau Plan. The plan advocated the forced de-industrialisation of Germany and the summary execution of so-called "arch-criminals", i.e. the major war criminals.[14] Roosevelt initially supported this plan, and managed to convince Churchill to support it in a less drastic form. Later, details were leaked in the US generating widespread condemnation by the nation's newspapers and propaganda was published about the plan in Germany. Roosevelt, aware of strong public disapproval, abandoned the plan, but did not adopt an alternative position on the matter. The demise of the Morgenthau Plan created the need for an alternative method of dealing with the Nazi leadership. The plan for the "Trial of European War Criminals" was drafted by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and the War Department. Following Roosevelt's death in April 1945, the new president, Harry S. Truman, gave strong approval for a judicial process. After a series of negotiations between Britain, the US, the Soviet Union, and France, details of the trial were worked out. The trials were to commence on 20 November 1945, in the Bavarian city of Nuremberg.

Creation of the courts
On 20 April 1942, representatives from the nine countries occupied by Germany met in London to draft the "Inter-Allied Resolution on German War Crimes". At the meetings in Tehran (1943), Yalta (1945), and Potsdam (1945), the three major wartime powers, the United Kingdom, United States, and the Soviet Union, agreed on the format of punishment for those responsible for war crimes during World War II. France was also awarded a place on the tribunal. The legal basis for the trial was established by the London Charter, which was agreed upon by the four so-called Great Powers on 8 August 1945, [15] and which restricted the trial to "punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries".

Some 200 German war crimes defendants were tried at Nuremberg, and 1,600 others were tried under the traditional channels of military justice. The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court was that defined by the Instrument of Surrender of Germany. Political authority for Germany had been transferred to the Allied Control Council which, having sovereign power over Germany, could choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of war. Because the court was limited to violations of the laws of war, it did not have jurisdiction over crimes that took place before the outbreak of war on 1 September 1939. The Soviet Union was one of the main driving forces behind the creation of a Special Military Tribunal, which evolved into the Nuremberg Trials by the creation of the legal framework to allow the charges against Nazi Germany to be applied. Soviet Lawyer Aron Naumovich Trainin, formed the legal framework for developing the concepts of aggressive war, genocide, and human rights.

Location

Four flags hanging from the Palace of Justice, 1945

Leipzig and Luxembourg were briefly considered as the location for the trial.[16] The Soviet Union had wanted the trials to take place in Berlin, as the capital city of the 'fascist conspirators',[16] but Nuremberg was chosen as the site for two reasons, the first being decisive:[17]

1. The Palace of Justice was spacious and largely undamaged (one of the few buildings that had remained largely intact through extensive Allied bombing of Germany), and a large prison was also part of the complex.
2. Nuremberg was considered the ceremonial birthplace of the Nazi Party. It had hosted the Party's annual propaganda rallies[16] and the Reichstag session that passed the Nuremberg Laws.[17] Thus it was considered a fitting place to mark the Party's symbolic demise.

As a compromise with the Soviets, it was agreed that while the location of the trial would be Nuremberg, Berlin would be the official home of the Tribunal authorities.[18][19][20] It was also agreed that France would become the permanent seat of the IMT[21] and that the first trial (several were planned) would take place in Nuremberg.[18][20]

Most of the accused had previously been detained at Camp Ashcan, a processing station and interrogation center in Luxembourg, and were moved to Nuremberg for the trial.

Participants
Each of the four countries provided one judge and an alternative, as well as a prosecutor.


Judges sitting in Nuremberg, from left to right: Volchkov, Nikitchenko, Birkett, Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, Biddle, Parker, Donnedieu de Vabres and Falco
Judges

• Major General Iona Nikitchenko (Soviet main)
• Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Volchkov (Soviet alternate)
• Colonel Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, Lord Justice (British main), President of the Tribunal
• Sir Norman Birkett (British alternate)
• Francis Biddle (American main)
• John J. Parker (American alternate)
• Edward Francis Carter (American alternate)
• Professor Henri Donnedieu de Vabres (French main)
• Robert Falco (French alternate)

Chief prosecutors

• Attorney General Sir Hartley Shawcross (United Kingdom)
• Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson (United States)
• Lieutenant-General Roman Andreyevich Rudenko (Soviet Union)
• François de Menthon, later replaced by Auguste Champetier de Ribes (France)

Assisting Jackson were the lawyers Telford Taylor,[22] William S. Kaplan[23] and Thomas J. Dodd, and Richard Sonnenfeldt, a US Army interpreter. Assisting Shawcross were Major Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and Sir John Wheeler-Bennett. Mervyn Griffith-Jones, who was later to become famous as the chief prosecutor in the Lady Chatterley's Lover obscenity trial, was also on Shawcross's team. Shawcross also recruited a young barrister, Anthony Marreco, who was the son of a friend of his, to help the British team with the heavy workload.

Defence counsel
The vast majority of the defense attorneys were German lawyers.[24] These included Georg Fröschmann, Heinz Fritz (Hans Fritzsche), Otto Kranzbühler (Karl Dönitz), Otto Pannenbecker (Wilhelm Frick), Alfred Thoma (Alfred Rosenberg), Kurt Kauffmann (Ernst Kaltenbrunner), Hans Laternser (general staff and high command), Franz Exner (Alfred Jodl), Alfred Seidl (Hans Frank), Otto Stahmer (Hermann Göring), Walter Ballas (Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach), Hans Flächsner (Albert Speer), Günther von Rohrscheidt (Rudolf Hess), Egon Kubuschok (Franz von Papen), Robert Servatius (Fritz Sauckel), Fritz Sauter (Joachim von Ribbentrop), Walther Funk (Baldur von Schirach), Hanns Marx (Julius Streicher), Otto Nelte (Wilhelm Keitel), and Herbert Kraus/Rudolph Dix (both working for Hjalmar Schacht). The main counsel were supported by a total of 70 assistants, clerks and lawyers.[25] The defense witnesses included several men who took part in war crimes themselves during World War II, such as Rudolf Höss. The men testifying for the defense hoped to receive more lenient sentences.[clarification needed] All of the men testifying on behalf of the defense were found guilty on several counts.[26][dubious – discuss]



The defendants in the dock, guarded by American Military Police
The trial
The International Military Tribunal was opened on 19 November 1945 in the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg.[27][28] The first session was presided over by the Soviet judge, Nikitchenko. The prosecution entered indictments against 24 major war criminals and seven organizations – the leadership of the Nazi party, the Reich Cabinet, the Schutzstaffel (SS), Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the Gestapo, the Sturmabteilung (SA) and the "General Staff and High Command", comprising several categories of senior military officers.[avalon 1] These organizations were to be declared "criminal" if found guilty.

The indictments were for:

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. Participating in war crimes
4. Crimes against humanity

The 24 accused were, with respect to each charge, either indicted but not convicted (I), indicted and found guilty (G), or not charged (—), as listed below by defendant, charge, and eventual outcome:

1	2	3	4
Photos	Name	Count	Penalty	Notes
	Martin Bormann	I	—	G	G	Death (in absentia)	Successor to Hess as Nazi Party Secretary. Sentenced to death in absentia.[avalon 2] Remains found in Berlin in 1972 and eventually dated to 2 May 1945 (per Artur Axmann's account); thought to have been killed trying to flee Berlin in the last few days of the war.
	Karl Dönitz	I	G	G	—	10 years	Leader of the Kriegsmarine from 1943, succeeded Raeder. Initiator of the U-boat campaign. Briefly became President of Germany following Hitler's death.[avalon 3] Convicted of carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare in breach of the 1936 Second London Naval Treaty, but was not punished for that charge because the United States committed the same breach.[29] Released 1 October 1956. Died 24 December 1980. Defense attorney: Otto Kranzbühler
	Hans Frank	I	—	G	G	Death	Reich Law Leader 1933–45 and Governor-General of the General Government in occupied Poland 1939–45. Expressed repentance.[avalon 4] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Wilhelm Frick	I	G	G	G	Death	Hitler's Minister of the Interior 1933–43 and Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia 1943–45. Co-authored the Nuremberg Race Laws.[avalon 5] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Hans Fritzsche	I	-	I	I	Acquitted	Popular radio commentator; head of the news division of the Nazi Propaganda Ministry.[avalon 6] Released early in 1950.[30] Fritzsche had made himself a career within German radio, because his voice was similar to Goebbels'.[31] Died 27 September 1953.
	Walther Funk	I	G	G	G	Life imprisonment	Hitler's Minister of Economics; succeeded Schacht as head of the Reichsbank. Released because of ill health on 16 May 1957.[avalon 7] Died 31 May 1960.
	Hermann Göring	G	G	G	G	Death	Reichsmarschall, Commander of the Luftwaffe 1935–45, Chief of the 4-Year Plan 1936–45, and original head of the Gestapo before turning it over to the SS in April 1934. Originally the second-highest-ranked member of the Nazi Party and Hitler's designated successor, he fell out of favor with Hitler in April 1945. Highest ranking Nazi official to be tried at Nuremberg.[32] Committed suicide the night before his scheduled execution.[avalon 8]
	Rudolf Hess	G	G	I	I	Life imprisonment	Hitler's Deputy Führer until he flew to Scotland in 1941 in an attempt to broker peace with the United Kingdom. Had been imprisoned since then. After trial, incarcerated at Spandau Prison, where he committed suicide in 1987.[avalon 9]
	Alfred Jodl	G	G	G	G	Death	Wehrmacht Generaloberst, Keitel's subordinate and Chief of the OKW's Operations Division 1938–45. Signed orders for the summary execution of Allied commandos and Soviet commissars [avalon 10] Signed the instruments of surrender on 7 May 1945 in Reims as the representative of Karl Dönitz. Hanged 16 October 1946. Posthumously rehabilitated in 1953, which was later reversed.
	Ernst Kaltenbrunner	I	—	G	G	Death	Highest-ranking SS leader to be tried at Nuremberg. Chief of RSHA 1943–45, the Nazi organ comprising the intelligence service (SD), Secret State Police (Gestapo) and Criminal Police (Kripo) and having overall command over the Einsatzgruppen.[avalon 11] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Wilhelm Keitel	G	G	G	G	Death	Head of Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) and de facto defence minister 1938–45. Known for his unquestioning loyalty to Hitler.[33] Signed numerous orders calling for soldiers and political prisoners to be executed. Expressed repentance.[avalon 12] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach	I	-	I	I	No decision	Major industrialist. C.E.O. of Friedrich Krupp AG 1912–45. Medically unfit for trial; he had been partially paralyzed since 1941. Due to an error, Gustav, instead of his son Alfried (who ran Krupp for his father during most of the war), was selected for indictment.[34] The prosecutors attempted to substitute his son in the indictment, but the judges rejected this due to proximity to trial. However, the charges against him remained on record in the event he should recover (he died in February 1950).[35] Alfried was tried in a separate Nuremberg trial (the Krupp Trial) for the use of slave labor, thereby escaping worse charges and possible execution.
	Robert Ley	I	-	I	I	No decision	Head of DAF, German Labour Front. Committed suicide on 25 October 1945, before the trial began. Indicted but neither acquitted nor found guilty as trial did not proceed.
	Baron Konstantin von Neurath	G	G	G	G	15 years	Minister of Foreign Affairs 1932–38, succeeded by Ribbentrop. Later, Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia 1939–43. On furlough since 1941, he resigned in 1943 because of a dispute with Hitler. Released (ill health) 6 November 1954[avalon 13] after suffering a heart attack. Died 14 August 1956.
	Franz von Papen	I	I	—	—	Acquitted	Chancellor of Germany in 1932 and Vice-Chancellor under Hitler in 1933–34. Ambassador to Austria 1934–38 and ambassador to Turkey 1939–44. Although acquitted at Nuremberg, von Papen was reclassified as a war criminal in 1947 by a German de-Nazification court, and sentenced to eight years' hard labor. He was acquitted following appeal after serving two.[avalon 14]
	Erich Raeder	G	G	G	—	Life imprisonment	Commander In Chief of the Kriegsmarine from 1928 until his retirement in 1943, succeeded by Dönitz. Released (ill health) 26 September 1955.[avalon 15] Died 6 November 1960.
	Joachim von Ribbentrop	G	G	G	G	Death	Ambassador-Plenipotentiary 1935–36. Ambassador to the United Kingdom 1936–38. Minister of Foreign Affairs 1938–45.[avalon 16] Expressed repentance.[36] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Alfred Rosenberg	G	G	G	G	Death	Racial theory ideologist. Later, Minister of the Eastern Occupied Territories 1941–45.[avalon 17] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Fritz Sauckel	I	I	G	G	Death	Gauleiter of Thuringia 1927–45. Plenipotentiary of the Nazi slave labor program 1942–45.[avalon 18] Hanged 16 October 1946. Defense attorney: Robert Servatius
	Dr. Hjalmar Schacht	I	I	—	—	Acquitted	Prominent banker and economist. Pre-war president of the Reichsbank 1923–30 & 1933–38 and Economics Minister 1934–37. Admitted to violating the Treaty of Versailles.[avalon 19] Many at Nuremberg alleged that the British had brought about Schacht's acquittal to safeguard German industrialists and financiers; Francis Biddle revealed Geoffrey Lawrence had argued that Schacht, being a "man of character", was nothing like the other "ruffians" on trial.[37] By 1944, he had been imprisoned in a concentration camp by the Nazis, and he was outraged to be put on trial as a major war criminal.[38]
	Baldur von Schirach	I	—	—	G	20 years	Head of the Hitlerjugend from 1933–40, Gauleiter of Vienna 1940–45. Expressed repentance.[avalon 20] Released 30 September 1966. Died 8 August 1974.
	Arthur Seyss-Inquart	I	G	G	G	Death	Instrumental in the Anschluss and briefly Austrian Chancellor 1938. Deputy to Frank in Poland 1939–40. Later, Reichskommissar of the occupied Netherlands 1940–45. Expressed repentance.[avalon 21] Hanged 16 October 1946.
	Albert Speer	I	I	G	G	20 years	Hitler's friend, favorite architect, and Minister of Armaments from 1942 until the end of the war. In this capacity, he was ultimately responsible for the use of slave laborers from the occupied territories in armaments production. Expressed repentance.[avalon 22] Released 1 October 1966. Died 1 September 1981.
	Julius Streicher	I	—	—	G	Death	Gauleiter of Franconia 1922–40, when he was relieved of authority but allowed by Hitler to keep his official title. Publisher of the anti-Semitic weekly newspaper Der Stürmer.[avalon 23] Hanged 16 October 1946.

Overview of the trial

Hermann Göring under cross-examination

"Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps" film produced by US armed forces and used as evidence.

October 17, 1946 U.S. newsreel of Nuremberg trials sentencing.

• 20 November 1945: The trials begin.
• 21 November 1945: Robert H. Jackson opens for the prosecution with a speech lasting several hours, leaving an impression on both the court and the public.
• 26 November 1945: The Hossbach Memorandum (of a conference in which Hitler explained his war plans) is presented.
• 29 November 1945: The film Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps is screened.[39]
• 30 November 1945: Witness Erwin von Lahousen testifies that Keitel and von Ribbentrop gave orders for the murder of Poles, Jews, and Russian prisoners of war.
• 11 December 1945: The film The Nazi Plan is screened, showing long-term planning and preparations for war by the Nazis.
• 3 January 1946: Witness Otto Ohlendorf, former head of Einsatzgruppe D, admits to the murder of around 90,000 Jews.
• 3 January 1946: Witness Dieter Wisliceny describes the organization of RSHA Department IV-B-4, in charge of the Final Solution.
• 7 January 1946: Witness and former SS-Obergruppenführer Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski admits to the organized mass murder of Jews and other groups in the Soviet Union.
• 28 January 1946: Witness Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier, member of the French Resistance and concentration camp survivor, testifies on the Holocaust, becoming the first Holocaust survivor to do so.
• 11–12 February 1946: Witness and former Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus, who had been secretly brought to Nuremberg from Soviet captivity, testifies on the question of waging a war of aggression.
• 14 February 1946: The Soviet prosecutors try to blame the Katyn massacre on the Germans.
• 19 February 1946: The Soviet film Cruelties of the German-Fascist Intruders, detailing the atrocities in the extermination camps, is screened.
• 27 February 1946: Witness Abraham Sutzkever testifies on the murder of almost 80,000 Jews in Vilnius by the Germans occupying the city.
• 8 March 1946: The first witness for the defense testifies – former General Karl Bodenschatz.
• 13–22 March 1946: Hermann Göring takes the stand.
• 15 April 1946: Witness Rudolf Höss, former commandant of Auschwitz, confirms that Kaltenbrunner had never been there, but admits to having carried out mass murder.
• 21 May 1946: Witness Ernst von Weizsäcker explains the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939, including its secret protocol detailing the division of Eastern Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union.
• 20 June 1946: Albert Speer takes the stand. He is the only defendant to take personal responsibility for his actions.
• 29 June 1946: The defense for Martin Bormann testifies.
• 1–2 July 1946: The court hears six witnesses testifying on the Katyn massacre; the Soviets fail to pin the blame for the event on Germany.
• 2 July 1946: Admiral Chester W. Nimitz provides written testimony regarding attacks on merchant vessels without warning, admitting that Germany was not alone in these attacks, as the US did the same.
• 4 July 1946: Final statements for the defense.
• 26 July 1946: Final statements for the prosecution.
• 30 July 1946: Start of the trial of the "criminal organizations".
• 31 August 1946: Last statements by the defendants.
• 1 September 1946: The court adjourns.
• 30 September–1 October 1946: The sentencing occurs, taking two days, with the individual sentences read out on the afternoon of 1 October.[40]

The accusers were successful in unveiling the background of developments leading to the outbreak of World War II, which cost around 50 million lives in Europe alone,[41] as well as the extent of the atrocities committed in the name of the Hitler regime. Twelve of the accused were sentenced to death, seven received prison sentences (ranging from 10 years to life sentence), three were acquitted, and two were not charged.[42]

Executions
Main article: Nuremberg executions


The body of Hermann Göring, Oct. 16, 1946

The death sentences were carried out on 16 October 1946 by hanging using the standard drop method instead of long drop. The U.S. Army denied claims that the drop length was too short, which may cause the condemned to die slowly from strangulation instead of quickly from a broken neck,[43] but evidence remains that some of the condemned men choked in agony for 14 to 28 minutes.[44][45] The executioner was John C. Woods.[46] The executions took place in the gymnasium of the court building (demolished in 1983).[47]

Although the rumor has long persisted that the bodies were taken to Dachau and burned there, they were incinerated in a crematorium in Munich, and the ashes scattered over the river Isar.[48] The French judges suggested that the military condemned (Göring, Keitel, and Jodl) be shot by a firing squad, as is standard for military courts-martial, but this was opposed by Biddle and the Soviet judges, who argued that the military officers had violated their military ethos and were not worthy of the more dignified death by shooting.[citation needed] The prisoners sentenced to incarceration were transferred to Spandau Prison in 1947.

Of the 12 defendants sentenced to death by hanging, two were not hanged: Martin Bormann was convicted in absentia (he had, unknown to the Allies, died while trying to escape from Berlin in May 1945), and Hermann Göring committed suicide the night before the execution. The remaining 10 defendants sentenced to death were hanged.

Nuremberg principles
The definition of what constitutes a war crime is described by the Nuremberg principles, a set of guidelines document which was created as a result of the trial. The medical experiments conducted by German doctors and prosecuted in the so-called Doctors' Trial led to the creation of the Nuremberg Code to control the future trials involving human subjects, a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation.

Of the indicted organizations the following were found not to be criminal:

• Reichsregierung [de]
• "The General Staff and High Command" was found not to comprise a group or organization as defined by Article 9 of the London Charter 14 Members of the High Command were tried as Criminals at the high command trial case 12 of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings
• Sturmabteilung

Subsidiary and related trials
The American authorities conducted subsequent Nuremberg Trials in their occupied zone.

Other trials conducted after the first Nuremberg trial include the following:

• Auschwitz trial
• Belsen trial
• Belzec trial before the 1st Munich District Court in the mid-1960s, of eight SS men of the Belzec extermination camp
• Chełmno trials of the Chełmno extermination camp personnel, held in Poland and Germany. The cases were decided almost twenty years apart
• Dachau trials
• Frankfurt Auschwitz trials
• Majdanek trials, the longest Nazi war crimes trial in history, spanning over 30 years
• Mauthausen-Gusen camp trials
• Hamburg Ravensbrück trials
• Sobibór trial held in Hagen, Germany, in 1965 against the SS men of the Sobibor extermination camp
• Treblinka trials in Düsseldorf, Germany

American role in the trial

Chief American prosecutor Robert H. Jackson addresses the Nuremberg court. 20 November 1945.

While Sir Geoffrey Lawrence of Britain was the judge who was chosen to serve as the president of the court, arguably, the most prominent of the judges at the trial was his American counterpart, Francis Biddle.[49] Before the trial, Biddle had been Attorney General of the United States but had been asked to resign by Truman earlier in 1945.[50]

Some accounts argue that Truman had appointed Biddle as the main American judge for the trial as an apology for asking for his resignation.[50] Ironically, Biddle was known during his time as Attorney General for opposing the idea of prosecuting Nazi leaders for crimes committed before the beginning of the war, even sending out a memorandum on 5 January 1945 on the subject.[51] The note also expressed Biddle's opinion that instead of proceeding with the original plan for prosecuting entire organizations, there should simply be more trials that would prosecute specific offenders.[51]

Biddle soon changed his mind, as he approved a modified version of the plan on 21 January 1945, likely due to time constraints, since the trial would be one of the main issues which were to be discussed at Yalta.[52] At trial, the Nuremberg tribunal ruled that any member of an organization convicted of war crimes, such as the SS or Gestapo, who had joined after 1939 would be considered a war criminal.[53] Biddle managed to convince the other judges to make an exemption for any member who was drafted or had no knowledge of the crimes being committed by these organizations.[50]

Justice Robert H. Jackson played an important role in not only the trial itself but also in the creation of the International Military Tribunal, as he led the American delegation to London that, in the summer of 1945, argued in favor of prosecuting the Nazi leadership as a criminal conspiracy.[54] According to Airey Neave, Jackson was also the one behind the prosecution's decision to include membership in any of the six criminal organizations in the indictments at the trial, though the IMT rejected this because it was wholly without precedent in either international law or the domestic laws of any of the Allies.[55] Jackson also attempted to have Alfried Krupp be tried in place of his father, Gustav and even suggested that Alfried volunteer be tried in his father's place.[56] Both proposals were rejected by the IMT, particularly by Lawrence and Biddle, and some sources indicate that this resulted in Jackson being viewed unfavorably by the latter.[56]

Thomas Dodd was a prosecutor for the United States. There was an immense amount of evidence backing the prosecutors' case, especially since meticulous records of the Nazis' actions had been kept. There were records taken in by the prosecutors that had signatures from specific Nazis signing for everything from stationery supplies to Zyklon B gas, which was used to kill the inmates of the death camps. Thomas Dodd showed a series of pictures to the courtroom after reading through the documents of crimes committed by the defendants. The showing consisted of pictures displaying the atrocities performed by the defendants. The pictures had been gathered when the inmates were liberated from the concentration camps.[57]

Henry F. Gerecke, a Lutheran pastor, and Sixtus O'Connor, a Roman Catholic priest, were sent to minister to the Nazi defendants.[58] Photographs of the trial were taken by a team of about a dozen US Army still photographers, under the direction of chief photographer Ray D'Addario.[59]

Legacy

Courtroom 600 in June 2016 showing contemporary configuration

The Tribunal is celebrated for establishing that "crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced."[60] The creation of the IMT was followed by trials of lesser Nazi officials and the trials of Nazi doctors, who performed experiments on people in prison camps. It served as the model for the International Military Tribunal for the Far East which tried Japanese officials for crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. It also served as the model[citation needed] for the Eichmann trial and present-day courts at The Hague, for trying crimes committed during the Balkan wars of the early 1990s, and at Arusha, for trying the people responsible for the genocide in Rwanda.

The Nuremberg trials had a great influence on the development of international criminal law. The Conclusions of the Nuremberg trials served as models for:

• The Genocide Convention, 1948.
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
• The Nuremberg Principles, 1950.
• The Convention on the Abolition of the Statute of Limitations on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1968.
• The Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War, 1949; its supplementary protocols, 1977.

The International Law Commission, acting on the request of the United Nations General Assembly, produced in 1950 the report Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgement of the Tribunal (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. II[61]). See Nuremberg Principles.

The influence of the tribunal can also be seen in the proposals for a permanent international criminal court, and the drafting of international criminal codes, later prepared by the International Law Commission.

Tourists can visit courtroom 600 on days when no trial is on. A permanent exhibition has been dedicated to the trials.[62]

Establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court
The Nuremberg trials initiated a movement for the prompt establishment of a permanent international criminal court, eventually leading over fifty years later to the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. This movement was brought about because, during the trials, there were conflicting court methods between the German court system and the U.S. court system. The crime of conspiracy was unheard of in the civil law systems of the Continent. Therefore, the German defense found it unfair to charge the defendants with conspiracy to commit crimes, while the judges from common-law countries were used to doing so.[63][page needed]

Criticism

This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. (September 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Though the guilt of the sentenced parties is generally considered beyond doubt, the trials themselves have been criticised on several procedural points.

A contemporary German jurist said:

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a "fraud".[66] "[Chief U.S. prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg[.] I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas", Stone wrote.[66]

Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."[67] Another prominent American who raised the ex post facto criticism was Robert A. Taft, a US Senate Majority Leader from Ohio and son of William Howard Taft. This position contributed to his failure to secure the Republican nomination for President in 1948.[68]

Ex post facto charges
Critics of the Nuremberg trials argued that the charges against the defendants were only defined as "crimes" after they were committed and saw the trial as a form of "victor's justice".[69][70] Quincy Wright, writing eighteen months after the conclusion of the IMT, explained the opposition to the Tribunal thus:

In 1915, Britain, France, and Russia jointly issued a statement explicitly charging, for the first time, another government (the Sublime Porte) of committing "a crime against humanity". However, it was not until the phrase was further developed in the London Charter that it had a specific meaning. As the London Charter definition of what constituted a crime against humanity was unknown when many of the crimes were committed, it could be argued to be a retroactive law, in violation of the principles of the prohibition of ex post facto laws and the general principle of penal law nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.[avalon 24]

The Tribunal itself strongly disputed that the London Charter was ex post facto law, pointing to existing international agreements signed by Germany that made aggressive war and certain wartime actions unlawful, such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.[avalon 25]


Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (at lectern, left) and an unknown prosecutor

One criticism that was made of the IMT was that some treaties were not binding on the Axis powers because they were not signatories. This was addressed in the judgment relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity,[avalon 26] which contains an expansion of customary law: "the [Hague] Convention expressly stated that it was an attempt 'to revise the general laws and customs of war,' which is thus recognized to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognized by all civilized nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the [London] Charter."

Hypocrisy of Allied nations
Jackson, in a letter discussing the weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told U.S. President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves "have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for", including violation of the Geneva Convention and the Soviet Union's aggression against the Baltic states.[72][73] One of the charges, brought against Keitel, Jodl, and Ribbentrop, included conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland in 1939. However, Soviet leaders were not tried for their part in the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact.[74] Moreover, Allied Powers Britain and the Soviet Union were not tried for preparing and conducting the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran (1941) and the Winter War (1939–1940), respectively. The main Soviet judge, Iona Nikitchenko, presided over some of the most notorious of Joseph Stalin's show trials during the Great Purges of 1936 to 1938, where he, among other things, sentenced Kamenev and Zinoviev,[75] as part of a regime that executed 681,692 people arrested for "counter-revolutionary and state crimes" in 1937 and 1938 alone.[76] Though the ICTY later held it to be "flawed in principle",[77] the tu quoque argument, adduced by German defendants, was admitted as a valid defense during the trials, and the admirals Dönitz and Raeder were not punished for waging unrestricted submarine warfare.[77]

Legitimacy
The validity of the court has been questioned on several grounds.

The trials were conducted under their own rules of evidence. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible "evidence". Article 19 specified that "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence ... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value". Article 21 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) Charter stipulated:

The chief Soviet prosecutor submitted false documentation in an attempt to indict defendants for the murder of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn forest near Smolensk. However, the other Allied prosecutors refused to support the indictment and German lawyers promised to mount an embarrassing defense. No one was charged or found guilty at Nuremberg for the Katyn Forest massacre.[78] In 1990, the Soviet government acknowledged that the Katyn massacre was carried out, not by the Germans, but by the Soviet secret police.[79]

Luise, the wife of Alfred Jodl, attached herself to her husband's defense team. Subsequently, interviewed by Gitta Sereny, researching her biography of Albert Speer, Luise alleged that in many instances the Allied prosecution made charges against Jodl based on documents that they refused to share with the defense. Jodl nevertheless proved some of the charges made against him were untrue, such as the charge that he helped Hitler gain control of Germany in 1933. He was in one instance aided by a GI clerk who chose to give Luise a document showing that the execution of a group of British commandos in Norway had been legitimate. The GI warned Luise that if she did not copy it immediately she would never see it again

Равнајући се према данашњим стандардима, бјеше више фарса него озбиљан судски процес гдје би оптужени могли рећи коју у своју одбрану. И то бјеше прилагођено том времену и околностима након рата какав није забиљежен у историји.
Гледајучи 4 тачке тадашње оптужнице;
- Учествовање у заједничком плану или завјери за спровођење злочина против мира.
- Планирање, започињање и вођење агресорских ратова и других злочина против мира.
- Ратни злочини.
- Злочини против човјечности.

Сам Хитлер да се нашао на оптуженичкј клупи би био проглашен кривим по све четири тачке оптужнице, посебно што су већ неки њему подређени били проглашени кривим по свим тачкама оптужнице.
Када би данас било суђење, како је примијетио форумаш Zoran Grbić можда би имао простора да обори прву тачку оптужнице али то зависи од које би премисе пошло судско вијеће, да ли "свако је невин док се не докаже супротно" или "сваки нациста је крив док се не докаже супротно". Додуше она правна наказа у Ден Хагу је увела нову премису у судској пракси "свако е невин док се докаже да је Србин". Досјетљиво.

Да ли је Хитлер био психијатријски случај?
То је задњих деценија пожељна перцепција, то да је био психијатријски случај. Наравно, ако би пажљиво скенирали његову биографију, знане епизоде или свједочења о понашању, селективним приступом нашли би подоста тога гдје би "болдовали" такво увјерење. Но опет ако би било коју личност у историји која је имала важну улогу у неком времену тако "скенирали" питање је код колико не би нашли примјере психијатријског поремећаја.
Но ту се отвара кључно питање. Ако је био психијатријски случај, илити народски речено луђак, како је успио окренути тако ток историје и да ствари оду тако по злу? Није његов политички пут трајао пар година него двије деценије. Па како је успио постати таквим ауторитетом код оних који су га слиједили? И како је успио задобити масе да га слиједе? Да се не лажемо, за велику већину тадашњег њемачког народа бјеше лидер којем су вјеровали, којег вриједи пратити, али не само њемачког народа, имао је подршку и припадника других народа, да сте направили анкету 1940-их у хрватском корпусу шта мислите колико би њих процентуално оцијенило Хитлера позитивним.

Раније су писане књиге гдје су аутори покушали разумјети генезу тог зла, (препоручујем књигу "Историја Гестапоа" од Жака Делароа из 1966.године, не знам да ли је доступна на нету, ако нађем линк приложићу) и гдје се тежило бољем разумијевању тог времена, но задњих деценија имамо једну банализацију, гдје се савршено уклапа да је Хитлер био луђак који је некако успио обрлатити њемачку нацију, а богами и добре % других нација.
Но како то и бива, банализација нас обично одведе на погрешан колосјек.

Hitler nije imao deluzije (halucinacije). Osim kad bi baš preterao sa drogama. Bio je uračunljiv.
Po prvoj tački optužnice mogao bi se braniti i Nolteovom argumentacijom. Ali je ta argumentacija oborena. Notorno je kriv po ostale tri tačke.

 

[Zoran Grbić]

Obesili su jednog nevinog čoveka (Jodla). Oslobodili su dvojicu krivih (fon Papena i Šahta). Oslobodili su jednog nevinog (Fričea). Jedan zlotvor se foliranjem izvukao sa manjom kaznom (Šper). Hitler je zaslužio da bude obešen.

 

[Zoran Grbić]

https://kupdf.net/download/theoriginsofthesecondworldwar-ajptaylor_59c90ea808bbc53d3c686e78_pdf

 

[Pumpaj Dinstanović]

Hitler nije imao deluzije (halucinacije). Osim kad bi baš preterao sa drogama. Bio je uračunljiv.
Po prvoj tački optužnice mogao bi se braniti i Nolteovom argumentacijom. Ali je ta argumentacija oborena. Notorno je kriv po ostale tri tačke.

Po kom osnovu, vezano za drugu tačku?

 

[Zoran Grbić]

Po kom osnovu, vezano za drugu tačku?

Austrija, Čehoslovačka, Poljska, Sovjetski Savez.

 

[Zoran Grbić]

Pa i objava rata SAD, mada bi mogao da se vadi na lend-lease politiku i na okupaciju Islanda.

 

[Pumpaj Dinstanović]

Austrija, Čehoslovačka, Poljska, Sovjetski Savez.

A vođenje agresorskih ratova bi trebalo da bude nešto što nije dozvoljeno?

 

[Добро дошли]

https://kupdf.net/download/theoriginsofthesecondworldwar-ajptaylor_59c90ea808bbc53d3c686e78_pdf

А јеси ли ти прочитао ту књигу коју нам подмећеш под нос?
Ред је да нам цитираш текст а не да јуримо књиге а потом читамо а када то завршимо, дискусије су одмакле и прочитано више није актуелно.

 

[Khal Drogo]

Када гледамо оптужницу, која би обухватила и Хитлера да се нашао на оптуженичкој клупи, она је састављена сходно том времену. У оптужници се оптужени нису теретили за оно најважније, геноцид и планско истребљење Јевреја и других народа, јер је конвенција о спречавању и кажњавању злочина геноцида (овдје) усвојена касније (усвојена је 9.12.1948.године а ступила снагу 12.01.1951.године). Већ је то обухваћено четвртом тачком оптужнице.

Да је та (најважнија) тачка оптужнице уврштена (пишем хипотетички наравно) без обзира што ми знамо да кривња постоји (а знамо јер милиони људи који су постојали раније не постоје, истребљени су, неко их је истријебио) тужилаштво би имало грдних проблема доказати "ван сваке разумне сумње" кривицу оптужених, пуно теже него злочине против човјечности гдје има кудикамо више простора да се кривица докаже.
Јер у злочину геноцида поред акције морате доказати и намјеру. А како доказати намјеру? Како јр већ неко на теми примијетио, нацисти су систематски уништавали трагове злочина, укључујући и највећи дио документације.
Па и оно што би преостало, били су врло темељити код писања наредби строго бирајући термине, чак толико да би такав дискурс користили у неформалном разговору, рецимо типа "обрадили смо толико и толико субјеката" и слично.
Процес против Ајхмана, гдје се прве четири тачке оптужнице односе на злочин геноцида, показао је да је неоспорна кривица једна прича а доказивање кривице у судском процесу потпуно друга прича.

 

[Zoran Grbić]

А јеси ли ти прочитао ту књигу коју нам подмећеш под нос?
Ред је да нам цитираш текст а не да јуримо књиге а потом читамо а када то завршимо, дискусије су одмакле и прочитано више није актуелно.

Pročitao sam. Pročitao sam i dosta bibl. jed. iz sekundarne literature, tj. literature koja se bavi tom knjigom. Ne može se citirati argumentacija koja zauzima celu knjigu. Osnovna teza je tajlorovska (kao i u slučaju njegove studije o Bizmarku): Nije planirao, već je ad hoc reagovao na događaje i promene u evropskoj politici, koje nije predviđao ili ih je pogrešno predviđao. Druga teza je da je, osim što je bio zločinac, nastavio tradicionalnu vilhelmovsku politiku, bez fiks ideja o osvajanju sveta. Mrzi me da navodim teze i protivstavove pristalica i protivnika Tajlorove interpretacije.
Btw dostupno je i free pdf izdanje na srpskohrvatskom, štampano 1994. u Agramu. Jutros sam ga pronašao.

 

[dulesrbenda]

Da li si siguran? Postoje dosta dobri argumenti i dosta ljudi koji se zalažu za interpretaciju da Hitler svakako jeste bio psihijatrijski slučaj.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathography_of_Adolf_Hitler

Занимљива анализа. Свакако ми најлогичније делује да је Хитлер патио од шизофреније и да је, у складу са тим, веровао да је он ,,немачки месија" предодређен да спаси Немачку и свет од Јевреја, масона и осталих непријатеља.

Е сад, није он једини који је у том покрету био да кажемо психијатријски случај. Ту свакако треба додати и људе који су веома утицали на Хитлера. Рецимо, ту свакако спада и Дитрих Екарт, пропали песник, антисемита, алкохоличар и наркоман, један од првих људи који је у Хитлеру видео дуго очекиваног вођу. Ни Екарт није био доброг психичког здравља, имао је халуцинације разне.
Још један лик који је, можда и највише од свих, утицао на Хитлера је Енглез Хјустон Стјуарт Чемберлен. И он је био параноичар, неуротичар, доживљавао је више пута нервне сломове, имао је многе халуцинације, често пута је говорио да се не сећа да је написао многе текстове које је потписао као своје. У књизи Вилијема Ширера ,,Успон и пад Трећег Рајха", има читаво једно поглавље посвећено Чемберлену, где се говори да је књигу која је постала инспирација свог нацистичклог расног лудила ,,Темељи девеетнаестог века", Чемберлен написао опет под утицајем теких халуцинација и веома поремећених психичких стања.
Сам Чемберлен је иначе сматрам ,,немачким пророком" и као таквог га је још Кајзер Вилхелм уважавао и поштовао. И Хитлер се дивио овом чудном, психички поремећеном Енглезу, а и сам Чемберлен је у Хитлеру видео дугоочекиваног ,,германском месију".
Ту је још једна читава плејада умно поремећених ликова који су уткали пут једној злочиначкој и лудачкој политицви која ће резултирати милионима мртвих.

Аи, мени само није јасно како је било могуће да таква једна група људи заведе читав један народ и поведе га у рат који ће и човечанство и сам тај народ одвести у катастрофу. Има ли нешто у немачкој души (ту можемо да се осврнемо и на Јунга и његову теорију о колективно несвесном) што је Немце навело да пођу у једну такву авантуру? Или је можда сасвим логичније да је једном у рату пораженом, пониженом народу, плус економски девастираном - сасвим добро дошла једна прича о ,.,узвишеном народу" и једна идеологија која је обећавала да ће том народу, пораженом и пониженом у рату, повратити славу и место које му у историји припада, те су због тога Немци тако фанатично кренули за Хитлером и људима око њега?
Но, ово је можда питање за неку другу ттему.

 

[Pumpaj Dinstanović]

Занимљива анализа. Свакако ми најлогичније делује да је Хитлер патио од шизофреније и да је, у складу са тим, веровао да је он ,,немачки месија" предодређен да спаси Немачку и свет од Јевреја, масона и осталих непријатеља.

Е сад, није он једини који је у том покрету био да кажемо психијатријски случај. Ту свакако треба додати и људе који су веома утицали на Хитлера. Рецимо, ту свакако спада и Дитрих Екарт, пропали песник, антисемита, алкохоличар и наркоман, један од првих људи који је у Хитлеру видео дуго очекиваног вођу. Ни Екарт није био доброг психичког здравља, имао је халуцинације разне.
Још један лик који је, можда и највише од свих, утицао на Хитлера је Енглез Хјустон Стјуарт Чемберлен. И он је био параноичар, неуротичар, доживљавао је више пута нервне сломове, имао је многе халуцинације, често пута је говорио да се не сећа да је написао многе текстове које је потписао као своје. У књизи Вилијема Ширера ,,Успон и пад Трећег Рајха", има читаво једно поглавље посвећено Чемберлену, где се говори да је књигу која је постала инспирација свог нацистичклог расног лудила ,,Темељи девеетнаестог века", Чемберлен написао опет под утицајем теких халуцинација и веома поремећених психичких стања.
Сам Чемберлен је иначе сматрам ,,немачким пророком" и као таквог га је још Кајзер Вилхелм уважавао и поштовао. И Хитлер се дивио овом чудном, психички поремећеном Енглезу, а и сам Чемберлен је у Хитлеру видео дугоочекиваног ,,германском месију".
Ту је још једна читава плејада умно поремећених ликова који су уткали пут једној злочиначкој и лудачкој политицви која ће резултирати милионима мртвих.

Аи, мени само није јасно како је било могуће да таква једна група људи заведе читав један народ и поведе га у рат који ће и човечанство и сам тај народ одвести у катастрофу. Има ли нешто у немачкој души (ту можемо да се осврнемо и на Јунга и његову теорију о колективно несвесном) што је Немце навело да пођу у једну такву авантуру? Или је можда сасвим логичније да је једном у рату пораженом, пониженом народу, плус економски девастираном - сасвим добро дошла једна прича о ,.,узвишеном народу" и једна идеологија која је обећавала да ће том народу, пораженом и пониженом у рату, повратити славу и место које му у историји припада, те су због тога Немци тако фанатично кренули за Хитлером и људима око њега?
Но, ово је можда питање за неку другу ттему.

Ovo drugo je, reko bih, nesporna istorijska činjenica.

Meni je takođe interesantno iz jednog drugog razloga; zbog toga što razbija u param parčad onu iluziju civilizacija vs nerazvijeni varvari, na najbolji praktični način. Pokaže da jedan narod, najpismeniji na svetu, koji je podario planeti tehnologiju i kulturu da se šturo izrazim; evoluirao u jednu od najvećih nakaza čitave planete. Toliko o tome da „civilizacija“ u odnosu na afrička plemena, ili čak i naš dobri stari Balkan kako se uvek pokušava isticati na njihovoj strani, temelji nužno tobože principe humanosti i tolerancije.

 

[Pumpaj Dinstanović]

I expert.

Za experta, ne doprinosiš nešto posebno ovoj temi...

 

[dulesrbenda]

Ovo drugo je, reko bih, nesporna istorijska činjenica.

Meni je takođe interesantno iz jednog drugog razloga; zbog toga što razbija u param parčad onu iluziju civilizacija vs nerazvijeni varvari, na najbolji praktični način. Pokaže da jedan narod, najpismeniji na svetu, koji je podario planeti tehnologiju i kulturu da se šturo izrazim; evoluirao u jednu od najvećih nakaza čitave planete. Toliko o tome da „civilizacija“ u odnosu na afrička plemena, ili čak i naš dobri stari Balkan kako se uvek pokušava isticati na njihovoj strani, temelji nužno tobože principe humanosti i tolerancije.

Наравно, Славене. Или што би Јунг сликовито рекао: ,,Без обзира на сву културу и цивилизацију, технологију и уметност, у Немцима је и даље чучао онај исти варварин, деструктиван и способан за најгоре зло; ћутао, био притајен и само је чекао да изађе на површину и покаже своје право лице у свом најгорем облику".
То је цитат из његовог текста ,,О суочавању са сенком", где је баш на немачком примеру из Другог светског рата, говорио о потреби сваког појединца и народа да се суочи са својом тамном страном, суочи и прихвати је, а не да је потискује и гура под тепих, да је негира и онда она, услед дугог потискивања и негирања, само експлодира и направи такав хаос какав су Немци направили у Другом светском рату.
Људска бића су итекако способна да чине велико зло и историја човечанства и јесте заправо једно својеврсно сведочанство људске деструктивности. Ниједан народ, ма колико био културан и цивилизован, технолошки ратзвијен није имун на то.